[CF-metadata] Hoeck/Stockhause standard names

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:54:28 +0100

Dear Alison

> The concern I have with using the
> non-standardised coordinate variables is that different datasets can use
> "forest" to mean different things but those differences may not be very
> obvious. A compromise would be to use area_fraction +
> land_cover/surface_cover and standardise the values of land_cover and
> surface_cover. What do people think about this?

I agree that standardising the values (as for region) would be the right
thing to do. As with standard names themselves, the possible values might
overlap and could have varying degrees of vaguesness, because this reflects
the way in which people use these concepts, and that has to be stated in the
definition of the possible values (which is harder than for regions, of
course, since they are just geographical).

Best wishes

Jonathan
Received on Tue May 01 2007 - 09:54:28 BST